Thanks to Karl Miller, I think I'm beginning to understand this argument.
Forget all this hi-falutin' stuff about tonal vs.  atonal, serial vs.
non-serial, equal-tempered vs.  well-tempered, and dodecaphonic vs., um,
euphonic.  Karl wrote,

>I find it ridiculous that just because a piece of music gives someone
>a headache, they would be reluctant to program it.  Does that mean ...
>that music that gives a headache should not be performed?

Gee, lemme think here, do I or do I not want to fight the traffic, endure
the coughers, spend the money to get a headache? Let's hear it from the
pro-headache crowd!  I'm sure the acme of this musical tradition will
induce migraines, or perhaps, in the hands of a true genius, even brain
tumors.

P.S.  (sotto voce to Don Satz) Jocelyn, to the best of my knowledge,
made to effort to define "the foundation for what should be available
to others", possibly excepting the confines of the Culver Music Series.
In any case, your conclusion- based on the comment cited- was a
non-sequitor, and should be recognized as such.

Larry